Rajasthan High Court
Dr Anil Agarwal vs State Higher Education Ors on 23 March, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14062/2016
Dr Anil Agarwal son of Lt. Sh. Ved Prakash Ji Agarwal, resident of
Swami Vivekanand Bazar, Sarafa Bazar, Hindaun City, District
Karauli (Rajasthan), at present working as lecturer (Hindi) Govt.
PG College, Hindaun City, District-Karauli (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Principla Secretary, Higher
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Director/Commissioner, Directorate of College Education,
Government of Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
3. Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Charvi Patni and
Mr. Prakhar Gupta, through VC for
Mr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
23/03/2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by
this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1627/2004
(Dr. Omendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.) and other
connected matters, on 04.07.2011 which reads as under:-
"The only controversy involved in the
present matters is regarding treatment of the
period of service of the lecturer in a private
college. This is for the purpose of grant of
benefit under the Career Advancement
Scheme (for short "the Scheme").
All the petitioners were initially engaged
by the private college followed by their
(2 of 5) [CW-14062/2016]
selection and appointment in the Government
College. The respondents refused to count
their previous services for advancing the
benefit under the Scheme.
It is submitted that similar controversy
came up before this Court for consideration in
the case of Dr. Suresh Chand Agarwal Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition NO.3540/1992 decided on 14th
September, 1994. The aforesaid judgment
was held by the Division Bench and is recently
being up-held by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide
its order 10th March, 2011 whereby the
Special Leave Petition filed by the Government
has been dismissed. The same controversy
was thereupon decided in the case of Dr.
(Mrs.) Uma Sarma Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors., in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.744/1998. Recently a special appeal
bearing No.6272/2009 has been dismissed by
the Division Bench of this Court vide its
judgment dated 06.05.2011 relying upon the
case of Dr. Suresh Chand Agarwal (supra) and
also the case of Dr. Ram Krishna Agarwal.
Looking to the aforesaid, petitioners are
entitled for the benefit arising out the circular
dated 18.01.1991 issued by the Government,
more specifically the clarification in para 2 of
the said circular where no distinction has been
made in regard to the nature of management
of the institution, about the private/local
body/government.
Learned counsel for the respondent/s did
not dispute the aforesaid.
In view of the above discussion, these
writ petitions are allowed and is ordered to be
governed by the judgment referred to above.
The cases of petitioners may be considered
pursuant to the circular dated 18.01.1991, if
they are found entitled for the benefit of
Career Advancement Scheme as per the norms
prescribed therein then they may be given
such benefits.
The respondents are expected to
complete the aforesaid exercise expeditiously
and, if possible, then within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order."
Subsequently the similar view was taken by this Court in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10536/2018 (Dr. Laxmi Narayan Arya
Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.) decided on 30.09.2021 by
observing thus:-
"1. This petition has been filed seeking directions to
the respondents to grant the petitioner the benefits of
Senior and Selection Scale under the Career Advancement
(3 of 5) [CW-14062/2016]
Scheme (CAS) by taking into account the temporary/ adhoc
service of the petitioner and ignoring the entries in APARs
which were not communicated to the petitioner in time.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy raised in this petition has already been resolved
in Vishveshwar Lal Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan,
SBCWP No.5160/2009, decided on 8-9-2015 and in
State of Rajasthan Vs. Milap Chand Jain [(2013) 14
SCC 562] that the entries of APARs which were not
communicated cannot be made basis for refusal of selection
scale and for counting the temporary service for grant of
selection scale.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents is in agreement with the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioner. He submits that the petition may be
disposed of in terms of the orders in case of Vishveshwar
Lal Chodhary (supra) and State of Rajasthan Vs. Milap
Chand Jain (supra).
4. In view of the consensus arrived at between the
parties, the petition is allowed in terms of the above
mentioned Orders. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and
the petitioner shall beentitled for Senior and Selection scale
and other benefits under the CAS by taking into account his
temporary service from01.11.1980 to 08.07.1986. The
APARs which were not communicated to the petitioner shall
not be made basis for refusing the due benefits.
5. The respondents are directed to complete the exercise
for grant the due benefits to the petitioner within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order."
It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the
respondent-State has also preferred D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.
1477/2014 against the earlier orders passed by the Single Bench
and the same were also dismissed in a batch of Special Appeals
(Writ) by the Division Bench of this Court on 16.12.2014. Hence,
the controversy involved in this matter has been finally decided
and the same has attained finality.
Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the
order passed by this Court on 22.03.2022 in the case of
"Ramswaroop Narwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & anr." in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.23066/2018, decided in the light of the judgment
(4 of 5) [CW-14062/2016]
passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Laxmi Narayan Arya
(supra). He further requests that this petition may be disposed of
in the light of the above referred judgments.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the
submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that
the circular dated 18.01.1991 is not applicable in the case of
petitioner and the same was applicable to the Career
Advancement Scheme, corresponding to the 4th Pay Commission.
He further submits that the circular dated 18.01.1991 issued by
the Government cannot be applied to the employees who were
appointed in private/government colleges after implementation of
Career Advancement Scheme corresponding to 4th Pay
Commission. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get any
benefit in view of circular dated 18.01.1991 and the judgment
cited by counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present
case.
Heard. Considered.
From the bare perusal of the circular dated 18.01.1991, it is
clear that the respondents have not made any distinction that this
circular is applicable only in the cases of Career Advancement
Scheme corresponding to 4th Pay Commission only. The circular is
silent in this regard.
While deciding batch of petitions in the case of Dr. Omendra
Singh (supra), this Court has taken a view that the petitioners are
entitled for the benefits arising out of the circular dated
18.01.1991 issued by the Government, more specifically in view of
the clarification made in Para No.2 of the said circular where no
distinction has been made in regard to the nature of management
of the institution, about the private/local body/government.
(5 of 5) [CW-14062/2016]
This Court is afraid of taking a different view from the view
which has already been taken by the co-ordinate Benches of this
Court in the cases of Dr. Omendra Singh (supra), Dr. Laxmi
Narayan Arya (supra) and Ramswaroop Narwal (supra).
In view of the submissions made above, this petition is
allowed in terms of the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by this
Court in the case of Dr. Laxmi Narayan Arya (supra). The
petitioner shall be entitled for Senior Selection scale and other
benefits under the CAS by taking into account his services
rendered in Agrasen Girls PG College, Hindaun City, District Karauli
w.e.f. 12.07.2002 to 09.12.2012.
The respondents are directed to complete the exercise for
grant of due benefits to the petitioner within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Stay application and all pending applications, if any stand
disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI /39
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
